Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Glenn Greenwald reports at his new independent news site 'The Intercept' that according to a former drone operator for the military's Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the NSA often identifies targets based on controversial metadata analysis and cell-phone tracking technologies. In one tactic, the NSA 'geolocates' the SIM card or handset of a suspected terrorist's mobile phone, enabling the CIA and U.S. military to conduct night raids and drone strikes to kill or capture the individual in possession of the device. The technology has been responsible for taking out terrorists and networks of people facilitating improvised explosive device attacks against US forces in Afghanistan. But he also states that innocent people have 'absolutely' been killed as a result of the NSA's increasing reliance on the surveillance tactic. One problem is that targets are increasingly aware of the NSA's reliance on geolocating, and have moved to thwart the tactic. Some have as many as 16 different SIM cards associated with their identity within the High Value Target system while other top Taliban leaders, knowing of the NSA's targeting method, have purposely and randomly distributed SIM cards among their units in order to elude their trackers. As a result, even when the agency correctly identifies and targets a SIM card belonging to a terror suspect, the phone may actually be carried by someone else, who is then killed in a strike. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which uses a conservative methodology to track drone strikes, estimates that at least 2,400 people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have been killed by unmanned aerial assaults under the Obama administration. Greenwald's source says he has come to believe that the drone program amounts to little more than death by unreliable metadata. 'People get hung up that there's a targeted list of people. It's really like we're targeting a cell phone. We're not going after people – we're going after their phones, in the hopes that the person on the other end of that missile is the bad guy.' Whether or not Obama is fully aware of the errors built into the program of targeted assassination, he and his top advisers have repeatedly made clear that the president himself directly oversees the drone operation and takes full responsibility for it."

Some have as many as 16 different SIM cards associated with their identity within the High Value Target system while other top Taliban leaders, knowing of the NSA's targeting method, have purposely and randomly distributed SIM cards among their units in order to elude their trackers.

So instead of killing X you kill X's friends A, B and C.

That doesn't sound like a good plan on their part.

I'd look for ways to communicate without SIM cards. Or to trash used SIM cards. They're cheap. Really cheap.

Israel should serve as a shining example of what happens when you try to use force and end up losing. The loser in the conflict is not entitled to a do over. People asking for a return to the 67 borders forget that the arab's attacked Israel in 73 but lost once again leading to the current borders. Why would Israel give up any land that would do nothing but give it's enemies better firing positions?

Might or the threat of force has always been used when it came to really big international disputes. To pretend otherwise is wishful thinking. The entire Israeli conflict is the result of the humiliation the Arab's have had to swallow each time they have tried to use military means to eliminate Israel. Israel only had a militia in 48 with no heavy artillery using old WW2 rifles supplied by Greece and still trounced the well supplied Arab armies. In 73 the Arabs had state of the art Soviet weapon systems (fi

The AC is referring to the practice of "mixing in" with ordinary civilians, especially with women, children, and hospitals. The idea being that if the terrorists (they are indeed bringing terror to the neighborhoods in which they do this) are targeted, the collateral damage of women, children, sick people, etc., is a big public relations bonanza for them.

I'm rating this a big fat meh:
1) this is the NSA targeting foreign enemies of the state, which is a far cry from them listening to MY cell phone.

The reason it's not a "meh" for me is because this puts the lie to the "it's only metadata" argument when applied to domestic data gathering. It proves that the "meta" data can be used to pinpoint people with relatively high accuracy, especially if they're not trying to be secretive.

The much more significant point would seem to be that the use of military assets to bomb civilian criminals is not the sort of thing the U.S. government is supposed to have the authority to do.

These "terrorists" sound like they're criminals not soldiers, and as such they should be a matter for the Afghani police. They should be apprehended, brought to trial and if found guilty sentenced according to Afghani law.

Whether it a drone that fires the missile, or a cell phone meta-data-mining program that provides the target is rather less important than the fact that blowing up a building to kill a target is an act of war and really not an appropriate solution.

or a cell phone meta-data-mining program that provides the target is rather less important than the fact that blowing up a building to kill a target is an act of war and really not an appropriate solution.

Every drone strike is authorized by the government of the country involved. That doesn't make it right, but it prevents it from being an act of war.

Interestingly, the only foreign operation that wasn't cleared was the raid into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden. That was an armed invasion into an allied country. If that operation had gone poorly, it would have been Obama's ass.

From what I recall reading, the US and Pakistan had long had an understanding that if the US found Bin Laden it would come after him.

If the raid to kill Bin Laden had gone badly it would have been an international incident, but that's about it... more than likely. Jimmy Carter survived his debacle at Desert One [washingtonpost.com].

16 different SIM cards associated with their identity within the High Value Target system while other top Taliban leaders, knowing of the NSA's targeting method

They (terrorists)---knew--- of the US's spying tactics long before Snowden ever came along, everyone in the US seems to continue there arrogance about people in 3rd world countries not knowing anything, whether it be tech, and how that tech is used to track everything they do, or how the US's military complex works. I can promise you there is a lot

If the government has the SIM's ID to gather metadata then they have full access to tap the phone to listen to all conversations. So it's not just that A talks to B. It's that A talks to B discussing an attack.

"Collateral damage" meaning "non-armed peaceful civilians" and that's after the U.S. propaganda denies everything it can without looking even more ridiculous and then some. If you want to increase the number of people willing to kill Americans with bombs, way to go.

This is not "fighting" terrorism, it is feeding it. The apparent goal seems to make the entire populace eager to take revenge on the U.S. at which point of time you can just carpet-bomb them without any collateral damage at all.

His Executive Order for closing same pretty much had all the loopholes it needed, since it required that prisoners be returned to their countries of origin if possible (and most of the countries of origin didn't want those guys back).

Plus there was the part about "The Department of Defense has determined that a number of the individuals currently detained at GuantÃnamo are eligible for such transfer or release.", which implies strongly that there are also a number NOT so eligible.

Then there's the "This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations." part, which provides plenty of cover for the DoJ to determine that any particular inmate is NOT eligible for release.

In other words, the Executive Order was written so as to cover Obama's ass first and foremost, with the actual closing of Gitmo a bonus, if it happened.

From the TFA...
Obama once reportedly told his aides that it âoeturns out Iâ(TM)m really good at killing people.â The president added, âoeDidnâ(TM)t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.â
I don't think even Mitt Romney will be this callous and arrogant.

More like Reagan 5.0. Puppets of US corporate mass media. Now who obeys who, does corporate mass media live in abeyance to the US government or are they both just obeying the same corporate masters which is why their message aligns. Kill for resources, kill for profits, people are of no value unless they can be controlled and exploited.

This is BS because it's not the NSA who runs the drones, but the CIA. So, this story represents an attempt to smear the NSA instead of the CIA who is ultimately responsible for the application of the intelligence to their own drone program.

P.S. I'm not a fan of either TLA, but I can at least recognize misattribution and FUD.

The world is much more terrifying than you realize. The men and women at NSA, CIA, and DOD are protecting you against monsters. You sleep at night, content and happy, because good people are protecting you. This isn't a fascist plot - I've stood literally a meter a way from a man who would have no compunction murdering your entire family. And we actually did shoot him. This is life, this is the world. And please don't delude yourselves.

Actually most folks on this planet are pretty nice. Unless -of course- you start randomly bombing them, or steal their resources, or invade their country. Then they stop being quite as nice. Look at New Zealand. They don't go around pissing people off in the first place, so they never get attacked:-P

You don't understand the problem, it isn't about being nice, or anything wrong you might have done to them. They are ultimately going to come after New Zealand because New Zealand doesn't conform to the rules they demand you live under. Do you know anything about the age of Islamic conquest, such as when they invaded Europe or took Constantinople? That is what they are about, their goal is a Muslim world even if it takes force of arms. You don't want them to get stronger.

Do you know anything about the age of Islamic conquest, such as when they invaded Europe or took Constantinople?

Do you understand that the people who took Constantinople and invaded Europe further (to be stopped at Vienna) were different from the people who carried out the initial building of the Islamic Caliphate and invaded Europe several centuries prior? Different ethnicity, different nation, different language, different customs - that they had the same religion (though even that was practiced differently in many ways) is a relatively minor detail.

I mean, by your own logic, every single war of conquest by a Christian state against a non-Christian one would be "Christian conquest".

In reality, Islam didn't play any significant role as a driver of expansion other than in the very first campaigns (under Muhammad himself, and his first few successors). Ottomans took Constantinople and invaded Europe because they could, just as Europeans have invaded the Americas and subjugated the natives because they could, and in that day and age, "right of conquest" was the supreme law. In both cases religion was used as an excuse for propaganda purposes, but it was not the primary motivator.

You don't see the world they way that they do. To them there is only one Islam, without race or nationality. They are all part of the Ummah - the body of believers that constitute the Islamic nation. In Islam there are two main divisions of the world: Dar al-Islam (House of Islam - where Muslims rule) and Dar al-Harb (House of War - where Muslims do not rule which makes it subject to war). Their goal is to extend Dar al-Islam to cover the entire world, restore the Caliphate government dissolved with the

I know about the divisions of the world in Islam etc. I also know about their practical place in the hierarchy of things. What your theory doesn't explain is why Muslims fought each other all along - not just Sunni vs Shia, but Sunni vs Sunni as well. Ottoman claims to Caliphate were, shall we say, contentious for quite a long time.

In truth, Muslim nations are like all other nations. They also have nationalism, for which Islam is, at best, a notable but not overwhelming part of their national identity. Arabs revolted against Ottoman Caliphs numerous times for these reasons, and Turks themselves always had a nationalist streak that ultimately lead them to rediscover themselves as a nation in their own right, and substitute "Turkishness" for Islam.

The only Muslims today who care about all that Dar al-Harb stuff and who actually have any specific plans for the re-establishment of the Caliphate are Salafi, but they're also the ones who don't recognize the vast majority of Caliphs since Muhammad as rightful rulers (in particular, Ottomans), because they deviated from the pure original Islam. I mean, we're talking here about people who deem Saudi Arabia to not be sufficiently Islamic, on the basis that they don't solely base their jurisprudence on Sharia, but have a few other written laws as well as the ability of the king to pardon people duly convicted by a sharia court.

However, Salafi are a minority among the Sunni. They are a dangerous minority, yes, and they will stir trouble, but the idea of enemy at the gates of the Western civilization is absurd in this context, and any parallels with the Ottoman conquests with Europe are superfluous. Salafi jihadists are a small group of fanatical rabble. By treating them as an army, and by advocating for the response on the scale that you do, you give them far too much credit and dignity. In practice, they are less dangerous to our civilization than, say, Mexican cartels.

Having been subject to "Christians" kindly wishing me death threats and mocking me for being associated with terrorists because of my looks, I say from the bottom of my heart cold fjord: fuck you and your scare mongering.

Did you ever stop to think the religious idiots this side of the globe will take out their paranoia and aggressions on their fellow American atheist citizens because of how they look or who their parents are?

Did you ever stop to think that there are consequences to your actions, and when y

That is an interesting idea. Why don't you look into the news to see if there are any campaigns of terrorism and violence in the world with the aim of establishing an extremist Islamist government with strict Sharia law. That would be putting their words into action. I might have heard a rumbling or two that something like that could be going on. Maybe you'll find something if you look.

I have read the news, and while there are quite a few spots around the world - some of them islamic. None of them are particularly threatening. We have a military that drawfs the militaries of the rest of the world combined.

Or are you saying that the fine men and women in our various armed forces are so incompetent that they couldn't defend against an attack from a far smaller, far weaker enemy? (not to mention all those impressive tool and weaponss we've invented) Such a position would be rather insulting

I understand the problem all too well: you think it's acceptable to fight fire with fire. That if terrorists commit torture, you can too. That if they can blow up innocents, you can too. That if they can call it jihad and sacrifice, you can call it enhanced interrogation techniques and collateral damage.

Tell me, cold fjord, when the old terrorists are all finally dead, what are you going to do with all the new ones you've trained at home?

You don't understand the problem, it isn't about being nice, or anything wrong you might have done to them. They are ultimately going to come after New Zealand because New Zealand doesn't conform to the rules they demand you live under. Do you know anything about the age of Islamic conquest, such as when they invaded Europe or took Constantinople? That is what they are about, their goal is a Muslim world even if it takes force of arms. You don't want them to get stronger.

US military strength has grown and decreased over the years, depending on what the perceived threat was. After the Cold War ended US military strength was significantly reduced. After 9/11 it was significantly increased, although not to Cold War levels overall. The US military is currently shrinking. But if al Qaida makes significant gains and grows in strength it will probably mean that the US will increase its armed forces to deal with it again.

Who was it that decided the world should be a Christian place run by the US?

They would gladly do it to you, just like they did it to those 17, and to Daniel Pearl [telegraph.co.uk]. Their goal is to impose that sort of rule on the entire world even if it takes 1,000 years. As of today there are people willing to put their body between you and them, putting their life and limb and risk, to prevent them from endangering you. Frankly, I'm not sure that the sacrifice of any of them is wort

If you think terrorists are scary, you should never drive or get in a car ever again, because doing that is much more likely to get you killed than the big bad oh-so-scary terrorists you're going on about.

Is the world "scary"? Well, everyone dies eventually, and I guess death is scary, so sure. What's scariest about it? Cancer and heart disease. Yup. If you're going to worry about stuff that could kill you, worry about cancer and heart disease. Because it's about 80% likely that that is what will kill you. Terrorists well let's see they're like #2000 on the list of stuff that is likely to get you killed, if that. So, no, it is not we who are not understanding what's happening around us. It is you who needs a crash course in statistics. Badly.

If you seriously think that we shouldn't worry about things that kill fewer people than cancer and heart disease, bear in mind that not only are fewer people killed by terrorists than by cancer and heart disease, but fewer people are killed by ordinary criminals and by a whole host of other things that even you think it's the proper role of government to protect us against. Unless you're an extreme libertarian who would reduce the government's rule down to almost nothing, you really have no business saying

Spending should be proportional to the danger because spending vast amounts of money on minor issues means more people die to the bigger threats.

As terrorism over the last decade killed about as many as die in freak bathtub accidents (about 300 per year), we should be spending about the same as we're spending on bathroom safety on the war on those scary terrorists.

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places

Yes, the world is a dangerous place. It was a dangerous place 200 years ago too. More dangerous, by any metric. Yet we still banded together in the name of freedom and not only shrugged off our cloak of protection (England) but actually engaged it in war, in the name of freedom. Yes, indeed, there was a day when we consciously gave up safety for freedom. How far we have come...

There was a time when people understood that safety wasn't the holy grail we should be chasing after. That no matter how much you give up, you can never be truly, totally safe. That some things are more important than safety. Cattle are safe. Their protectors guarantee this to a great extent. Not only are they protected from predators, they're also protected from disease and have all their routine needs for food and shelter met. Is that the type of existence we should be striving for?

I don't believe your claims, but let's forget about that. Let's say that your claims are all indisputably true. Why should I be any more scared of these monsters that threaten to take my life than I am of my own government, which is actually succeeding in taking my freedom?

Are you one of those people that believes that life in bondage is more valuable than death in the name of freedom? How do you reconcile your stance with the attitude that prevailed at the founding of this country, which Patrick Henry summarized in 1775 with the words: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

But first show me a better method to prosecute those who would perpetuate suicide bombings than going up to people and asking, "Are you Taliban?" and arresting those who say Yes. Show us a way to be both secure and free, for there are those who desire to eat their cake and have it too.

Why? Will you show me a better method to protect people against lightning strikes? To prevent people from falling and hitting their heads in the bathtub? Because as far as I know, both of these issues pose a considerably more grave threat to the lives of Americans.

I'm saying that we don't particularly need to prosecute those who would perpetuate [sic] suicide bombings. Not only do they not pose any material threat to the safety of these United States, but they're already imposing the death sentence on th

If you honestly think that the "world out there" is "full of horror" and "monsters", you've got serious mental issues. Maybe you can help yourself by travelling the world - not in an army uniform, and not just to places where you are sent to shoot people your employer dislikes.

Maybe you would realize then that people all around the world have much better things to do then to conspire against people living in some remote country. Unless of course, they are being approached by you dropping bombs on their ho

I believe it's not satire, and although you might have traveled the world, you didn't go where bstarrfield did.

I can guarantee that, because peoples' opinions are colored by where they have been and what they have seen. A church missionary might say they saw all walks of life and they were kind, generous, and beautiful people. A soldier may see a few of these people, but have their opinions made from a line of people who would, if possible, behead them and their children. A CEO's wife may see foreigners

Please, spare me the paranoid paternalistic byeline. Of how you are all doing this to protect us. Yes, protecting democracy by installing many dictatorships across four fucking in contients. Remember "we have to destroy the village in order to save it". I guess we have to save the constituion as well then. Don't worry about all of the travesties, loss of liberties, and piling up debts to pay for the military-intelligence industrial complex revolving door. I'd rather have/actual/ freedom and/actual/ contro

I fear what my own government can do to me FAR more than I fear any 'terrorist'. and the chances of a US authority figure fucking us over (cops, judges, politicians, etc) is likely in our lifetimes while being hit by a terrorist is extremely unlikely.

we are tired of this 'rule by fear'. we understand you like to control us that way, but we are hip to your bullshit and one day, the tides will turn and your 'culture of fear' won't be so popular anymore.

we are tired of this 'rule by fear'. we understand you like to control us that way, but we are hip to your bullshit and one day, the tides will turn and your 'culture of fear' won't be so popular anymore.

Until the next general election, when the 'hip' people are again overwhelmed by the fear-addicted lemmings (soccer moms and Joe six-clueless).

On the one hand, I would mod up your comment. I think that too many people who criticize NSA and CIA would turn to jelly in the world without them.
On the other hand: Alexis de Tocqueville

“What good does it do me, after all, if an ever-watchful authority keeps an eye out to ensure that my pleasures will be tranquil and races ahead of me to ward off all danger, sparing me the need even to think about such things, if that authority, even as it removes the smallest thorns from my path, is also absol

The world is much more terrifying than you realize. The men and women at NSA, CIA, and DOD are protecting you against monsters. You sleep at night, content and happy, because good people are protecting you. This isn't a fascist plot - I've stood literally a meter a way from a man who would have no compunction murdering your entire family. And we actually did shoot him. This is life, this is the world. And please don't delude yourselves.

You Americans - you sit in safety without understanding what's happening around you. The world is full of horror, and there are people who are trying to protect you, and they do care about the Constitution. The darkness is around you, and you're oblivious to it. This is history. You have no fucking idea what the world is actually like. This is not a game. So please try to understand what the NSA is doing for you.

No, the world is not terrifying. It is a beautiful place. It is people like you who make it terrifying by trying to gain from it being more terrifying.

The men and women at NSA, CIA, and DOD are protecting you against monsters.

The U.S.'s brutal and stupid foreign policy, carried out by the NSA, CIA, DOD, et al., does at least as much -- possibly more -- to create monsters than protect us from them. It's a wonderful cycle for the military/industrial/security complex: the complex fscks over nation A, nation A gets angry and makes aggressive noise, the complex points at nation A and says, "See? See? Danger! Feed the complex so we can protect you!"

Of course kicking the hornet's nest and then telling people, "Hey, we need to go kick hornet's nests because look at how dangerous these hornets are!" is hardly an American invention. But we are the current masters of it for sure.

The world is full of horror, and there are people who are trying to protect you, and they do care about the Constitution.

They would not need to work quite so hard to protect me (and you!) if they would stop trying to prevent me (and you!) to protect myself (and yourself!).

Caring about the Constitution is great but when your care leads you to thoughts (and laws!) that justify violating the Constitution, you have lost your way. Caring is not enough. The Constitution MUST be priority #1 when evaluating the creation of any new laws. If the Constitution is inconvenient, either accept it or use the legal methods to change it.

So someone could take a box with a dozen or so of the SIM cards and place it in a mosque, wedding, or other gathering of completely innocent people. Suddenly it's a meeting place with many "high value" targets and a bunch of innocents die, known SIM cards get destroyed and the bad guys need to get new phones. Or SIM card anyhow. So this harmless metadata, or so the NSA says, is enough information to fire missiles at people. But it's not something that I should be concerned with being tracked if it's from

One thing I wonder about the "takes full responsibility" bit is this: if it is proven in the future (and I'm sure it will) that some drone strike has killed only innocent people and no 'legitimate target', would the friends and families of the killed people be allowed to kill Obama? If yes, then he is indeed taking full responsibility. If not, then he is not taking full responsibility. Settling the matter with money does not count.

Personally I could settle for having Obama (or the president of the day) p

Let's just assume that was successful practicing for the day when computer evaluated meta data will determine whether citizens are allowed to live on in the USofA. Such data will one day be used to predict whether your upcoming life will be profitable to those in command of the drones. If it's not, better run for cover.

Ok, if that's how you feel. Don't feel bad if you get blown up. You should have had a better president and government. If you get killed by some terrorist organization, then you must have deserved it due to the country you live in and president you have.

They really don't use your cellphone to track you. They use your unique brain signature, and as you move around (even in buildings/under cover), they can watch you and see where you go. This allows them to track you 24/7 wherever you are, without use of cellphone or other tracking device.

The only problem with this method, is, it's covert, and therefore cannot be used in a court of law. But it can be used everywhere else. If a target happens to get killed when the person wasn't the true target, it's all a li

Yeah your body is like a lightbulb from space in the 0-100Hz realm, and it travels through walls pretty easily (billions upon billions of neurons lights you and the inside of buildings up pretty good).;)

"...Whether or not Obama is fully aware of the errors built into the program of targeted assassination, he and his top advisers have repeatedly made clear that the president himself directly oversees the drone operation and takes full responsibility for it."
The press making up excuses for all that tee time? Fuck That!

the President of the United States is nothing but a murdering sack of dripping human waste.I say this as an ashamed life time Democrat that will never vote for the Democratic party of murdering scum as long as I live. Which may be just until the next drone strike. Fuck you you vile evil scum-sucking bastard.

So, there could arise a market for "[recently] used terrorists' 9tSIM cards"(Terrorists might see 2 incentives for selling their old SIMs into it - atleast if they're very mobile: reduce chance of being killed & some easy $$).

Who'd buy?

Well, anyone wanting soneone -else- dead; instead of paying a high-pricedprofessional killer, all that person would need to do (theoretically) is to:

Do you really know if you're the first person to have used the particular SIM in your phone? Sure the vendor said it was new, but do you really know? Particularly if you live in a third world country where there's no big-name corporate retailers?

I'm getting seriously tired of the "We're not as bad as the Taliban/Russians/Chinese/Storm Troopers/..." argument.

You're supposed to be a whole lot better, not just slightly better!

Also, it's not a question of what could happen, it is happening. It's even happening to US citizens. Your government now asserts that it's allowed to arbirtarily kill its own citizens. I don't care how much worse someone else is. That's BAD.

Do you really know if you're the first person to have used the particular SIM in your phone?

A totally irrelevant question, since two different SIMs can have the same identifier (IMSI). This most often happens in two different cases; when you get a replacement SIM and when a pre-paid card is made invalid by not being charged for too long. Even if you have a completely new SIM card, it may have the same internal identifier, and possibly even the same phone number, as a SIM card previously used by a terrorist leader. In which case there would be no real effective way to tell the difference in mos